Next steps...

1505grandad

Para 3  -  "The vehicle was parked within the residential grounds and as a property owner at the time of XXXXXXX the defendant denies accepting any contracts with this third party."

Para 3.6  -  "The keeper cannot be held liable because the claimant is unable to rely upon the POFA 2012 schedule 4 in the NTK, and it is not relevant land under the POFA 2012 schedule 4 Para 3,1c."

Is the land subject to statutory control?

another_mac

1505grandad said:

Para 3  -  "The vehicle was parked within the residential grounds and as a property owner at the time of XXXXXXX the defendant denies accepting any contracts with this third party."

Para 3.6  -  "The keeper cannot be held liable because the claimant is unable to rely upon the POFA 2012 schedule 4 in the NTK, and it is not relevant land under the POFA 2012 schedule 4 Para 3,1c."

Is the land subject to statutory control?

Being private land - the above would need to be change as it is on relevant land - thank you for bringing that to my attention.

another_mac

The amendment of the previous has been performed and kindly ask for review. A secondary look at the documentation, and the location of the vehicle has also been seen as incorrect on the documentation provided by the parking firm both on the notice and the NTK - if that is part of the defence?

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is denied that the defendant was the driver at the time in question. There is one other named driver on the vehicle insurance. The claimant is put to strict proof that the defendant was the driver on the day of the alleged contravention.

3. The defendant was first made aware of the parking charge when they were returning to utilise the vehicle. The vehicle was parked within the residential grounds and as a property owner at the time of XXXXXXX the defendant denies accepting any contracts with this third party. 

3.1 At the time of the alleged contravention, the vehicle was unable to vacate the location prior to the parking charge being applied due to restrictions on the road by two removal vans which were restricting the exit path of the vehicle.

3.2 On the receiving the parking charge, the defendant appealed the charge as the keeper, stating that the alleged charge was null and void as the documentation stated the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines, which was incorrect, in addition to the situation that led to the alleged contravention, however this was rejected.

3.4 The location of the alleged contravention, including the street name and postcode (XXXXXXXX) is incorrect as the vehicle was located on another road and postcode in the area (XXXXXXXX)

3.4 The claimant failed to understand the defendants position and therefore did not follow the Practice Direction on Pre Action Protocol 

3.5 The keeper cannot be held liable because the claimant is unable to rely upon the POFA 2012 schedule 4 in the NTK.

Coupon-mad

another_mac said:

The amendment of the previous has been performed and kindly ask for review. A secondary look at the documentation, and the location of the vehicle has also been seen as incorrect on the documentation provided by the parking firm both on the notice and the NTK - if that is part of the defence?
YES.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO DENY BEING THE DRIVER...ARE YOU SURE YOU WERE NOT?  YOU SEEM TO KNOW A LOT ABOUT THE SITUATION AND BEING BLOCKED IN BY REMOVAL VANS...YOU WILL NEED TO EXPLAIN HOW YOU KNOW THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL, IF YOU WERE NOT DRIVING.

ADD THE STUFF BELOW BUT NOT IN CAPITALS, THIS IS JUST TO SHOW WHICH COMMENTS ARE MINE:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is denied that the defendant was the driver at the time in question. There is one other named driver on the vehicle insurance. The claimant is put to strict proof that the defendant was the driver on the day of the alleged contravention OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT THEY HAVE COMPLIED FULLY WITH THE POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4, REGARDING THE PRESCRIBED DOCUMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS FOR CASES WHERE 'KEEPER LIABILITY' MAY APPLY (WHICH IS DENIED).

3. The defendant was first made aware of the parking charge when they were returning to utilise the vehicle. The vehicle was parked within the residential grounds and as a property owner at the time of XXXXXXX the defendant denies accepting any contracts with this third party. 

3.1 At the time of the alleged contravention, the vehicle was unable to vacate the location prior to the parking charge being applied due to restrictions on the road by two removal vans which were restricting the exit path of the vehicle.

3.2 On the receiving the parking charge, the defendant appealed the charge as the keeper, stating that the alleged charge was null and void as the documentation stated the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines, which was incorrect, in addition to the situation that led to the alleged contravention, however this was rejected.

3.4 The location of the alleged contravention, including the street name and postcode (XXXXXXXX) is incorrect as the vehicle was located on another road and postcode in the area (XXXXXXXX)

3.4 The claimant failed to understand the defendants position and therefore did not follow the Practice Direction on Pre Action Protocol 

3.5 The keeper cannot be held liable because the claimant is unable to rely upon the POFA 2012 schedule 4 in the NTK.

Suggested changes above. 

If you don't think you were driving then you were not 'returning' to the vehicle, were you?!

And please tell us you know about these two threads and have done both required urgent tasks?

I really hope you have done the Government Consultation by email and objected absolutely to ANY debt recovery fake 'costs' being added on top of a parking charge (of course) and told them what you think of them increasing charges to £130 instead of £100...which is already extortionate.

Also, I hope you've also registered for the Group Action, against the DVLA.

another_mac

Coupon-mad said:

Suggested changes above. 

If you don't think you were driving then you were not 'returning' to the vehicle, were you?!

And please tell us you know about these two threads and have done both required urgent tasks?

I really hope you have done the Government Consultation by email and objected absolutely to ANY debt recovery fake 'costs' being added on top of a parking charge (of course) and told them what you think of them increasing charges to £130 instead of £100...which is already extortionate.

You have 6 days to do the consultation.  Please, please, do and do it by email so you attach evidence.  Spread the word, is closes within days, next week!

Also, I hope you've also registered for the Group Action, against the DVLA (open to anyone with a PCN since 2018?).  Gotta be in it to win it!  Nothing to lose, and it's genuine.

Read the threads about those important matters, they both need doing, right now, this week.

Thank you  for the suggestions they will be incorporated. As for your questions - a response has been provided with regards to the government consultation both online and followed up via email - with the evidence attached. Also the DVLA class action - keeper name put forward, although this particular issue will not be the event concerned as it is out of the date range - however there is another that meets the requirement.

Finally the reason the keeper is aware of such details with regards to the removal vans is because the images taken by the "enforcement officer" have the removal vans in shot in addition to google street view images showing one way out of the location, which corroborates with witness statements.
 

another_mac

The registered keeper now has a court date set - looks like it will be in person. A witness statement has been written - can it be shared, at least portions of it for thoughts and feedback please?

KeithP

another_mac said:

A witness statement has been written - can it be shared, at least portions of it for thoughts and feedback please?

Of course.

Coupon-mad

I think we have better 2021 example WS than that.  Look at the WS by @jrhys and @Nosy.

another_mac

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yCbA2B_OkNP6RPccdWHpRnpkzR7H3Bxi/view?usp=sharing 

The formatting a bit better

another_mac

It’s been a while since I’ve posted and also a while since the court date was set, and rescheduled, and rescheduled again (all understandable-covid and backlog etc). 

Ultimately the claim was struck out with the claimant not in attendance. 

I would like to take this moment to thank @Coupon-mad and @KeithP @Le_Kirk @1505grandad  and all involved in the guidance through it all. Another success to add to the list.